Modern Tennis Is A Brutal Sport

[TMF]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Peple want it both ways: they claim the game is more physical now so it's harder to win more titles, but at the same time say that nutrition and training are so much more advanced than they were decades ago. Which is it? The players of the 1960s were poorly conditioned, trained on beer, but were able to play enough to win 200 titles????

The advanced nutrition and medical gets totally blown out of porportion. Of course it helps modern players, but it's not going to turn a player into superhuman. If you're injured due to physcial stress on court, you still have to take time off, have surgeries, and even injuries can stay permanent(eg hip injury). Nole is incredibly fit, but does anyone believe advanced science is going to keep him playing as long as Rosewall? Hell no. Nothing can help if he put so much stress on his leg, shoulder, knee, etc(as we have seen many of his matches).

I supposed if Laver had all the access to modern science...nutrition, better doctor, better equipments in the 60s, he would win 400 titles ?? LOL

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

The advanced nutrition and medical gets totally blown out of porportion. Of course it helps modern players, but it's not going to turn a player into superhuman. If you're injured due to physcial stress on court, you still have to take time off, have surgeries, and even injuries can stay permanent(eg hip injury). Nole is incredibly fit, but does anyone believe advanced science is going to keep him playing as long as Rosewall? Hell no. Nothing can help if he put so much stress on his leg, shoulder, knee, etc(as we have seen many of his matches).

I supposed if Laver had all the access to modern science...nutrition, better doctor, better equipments in the 60s, he would win 400 titles ?? LOL

You're twisting the words. Like I wrote in past posts which you again fail to acknowledge, one of the big reasons players played longer in the past was three reasons, money, money, money. Pancho Gonzalez was not that rich for example. He had bills and ex wives to take care of. These players at the beginning of the Open Era played in big money tournaments to literally cash in on the big money in tennis. It wasn't close to the money they have today where a guy like Sampras can retire early and never worry about bills or finances again.

Just recently Agassi has played to his mid thirties, retiring at age 36. Sampras probably could have played a number of years longer considering he won his last major in his last tournament at I believe age 32. You have your hero saying he wants to play in the Olympics in a few years at around age 35. So are you going to say that players cannot play in later ages at that point?

Navratilova played into her late thirties very successfully.

Jimmy Connors played past age 40 and was very competitive. He was in I believe his mid thirties for example when he crushed Edberg at the US Open. He was 39 when he went to the US Open semi in 1991. The key to this I believe is that the players we mentioned are all fantastic players. If they decline the decline is from such a high level that they still are often very good and competitive. It's not always the case but guys like Rosewall or Gonzalez were winning tournaments into their forties although they generally weren't a top force (with the exception of Rosewall in 1974) in the majors.

Players in the past generally retired early also. Rosewall, Laver, Agassi, Connors, Gonzalez, Navatilova and probably in the near future Federer will be the exceptions. Notice anything in common with these people? They're all great players.

Sometime I think my fingers will get tired repeating the same answers over and over and over again.

Here's a match by the old guy Jimmy Connors at age 39. Pretty grueling rallies here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AuBGmLw1ZY
Connors was always a grinder but he knew how to finish off rallies at the net.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

Is everybody enjoying the Australian Open lately ?

This is what happen to Kavcic after his match in the 2nd round. He was completely gone after a brutal match, with exhaustion, injuries, pain, and force to see medical attention. He's only 25 years old, unlike 40 years old Gonzales who had no problem competing in the old days when tennis was easier on the body. That's why players in the pre-open era and even in the 70s were able to win so many titles. I hope you all understand why it's not possible to win a lot titles because the game is way more physical then ever. So please, don't use Laver's 200 titles as has equal weight to today's standard. It holds a standard to his era but no way it's comparable to today.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/...-1226556127915

And way more stupid.

Maybe Blaz is a wimp.? 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 10-8 in 104 degree weather--sounds like a tough match. Bet he couldn't play a tough match before the tie-breaker was invented, like Gonzales did.

Gonzales won at Wimbledon against Charlie Pasarell: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. But it was probably hotter in Sydney. But then Gonzales lived in Las Vegas where it has been known to get hot . . . occasionally.

Pancho would have won this match easily with his S&V style--no hours of brainless, exhausting baseline-bashing.

If only they knew how to volley today.?

But, oh yes, volleying is obsolete and endless baseline-bashing is so "heroically" physical (and so dumb in that heat--but it's all they know how to do).

Duh!?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And way more stupid.

Maybe Blaz is a wimp.? 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 10-8 in 104 degree weather--sounds like a tough match. Bet he couldn't play a tough match before the tie-breaker was invented, like Gonzales did.

Gonzales won at Wimbledon against Charlie Pasarell: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. But it was probably hotter in Sydney. But then Gonzales lived in Las Vegas where it has been known to get hot . . . occasionally.

Pancho would have won this match easily with his S&V style--no hours of brainless, exhausting baseline-bashing.

If only they knew how to volley today.?

But, oh yes, volleying is obsolete and endless baseline-bashing is so "heroically" physical (and so dumb in that heat--but it's all they know how to do).

Duh!?

Are players allowed to volley? I didn't know you're allowed to hit the ball in the air. I thought the net was a place you're guaranteed to be passed or lobbed over.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And way more stupid.

Maybe Blaz is a wimp.? 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 10-8 in 104 degree weather--sounds like a tough match. Bet he couldn't play a tough match before the tie-breaker was invented, like Gonzales did.

Gonzales won at Wimbledon against Charlie Pasarell: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. But it was probably hotter in Sydney. But then Gonzales lived in Las Vegas where it has been known to get hot . . . occasionally.

Pancho would have won this match easily with his S&V style--no hours of brainless, exhausting baseline-bashing.

If only they knew how to volley today.?

But, oh yes, volleying is obsolete and endless baseline-bashing is so "heroically" physical (and so dumb in that heat--but it's all they know how to do).

Duh!?

Stop getting all upset just because I speak the truth. The baseline, long rallies is all part of the conditions that players must follow. Unlike in the old days when conditions allow you to shorten the point. That's another reason why tennis today is more gruesome. The extensive playing on hc, with demands to run faster and more distance, more exertion in every strokes.

Unfortunately, we can't control the weather. The players today get cramp, pull a muscle(hamstring), back problem, knees, ankle, etc. Had there isn't any trainer/MTO during the match, there would be many incidents of players retire early.

Also, notice they had to build the roof on Laver's Arena just to protect the players. Which reminds in 2009 AO when Nole's was about to collapse after the suffering from heat exhaustion. He was leading and in control of the match against Roddick, however the heat got the best of him and Roddick managed to take over and win in the end. The next day Serena also was effected by the heat, and was losing the match. But the difference was the officials decided to close the roof to protect the player's health, and Serena regain her strength and managed to win in the end.

I agree there were heat wave during the old days, but it doesn't have the significant effect on the players as it has for the modern players.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Stop getting all upset just because I speak the truth. The baseline, long rallies is all part of the conditions that players must follow. Unlike in the old days when conditions allow you to shorten the point. That's another reason why tennis today is more gruesome. The extensive playing on hc, with demands to run faster and more distance, more exertion in every strokes.

Unfortunately, we can't control the weather. The players today get cramp, pull a muscle(hamstring), back problem, knees, ankle, etc. Had there isn't any trainer/MTO during the match, there would be many incidents of players retire early.

Also, notice they had to build the roof on Laver's Arena just to protect the players. Which reminds in 2009 AO when Nole's was about to collapse after the suffering from heat exhaustion. He was leading and in control of the match against Roddick, however the heat got the best of him and Roddick managed to take over and win in the end. The next day Serena also was effected by the heat, and was losing the match. But the difference was the officials decided to close the roof to protect the player's health, and Serena regain her strength and managed to win in the end.

I agree there were heat wave during the old days, but it doesn't have the significant effect on the players as it has for the modern players.

Please explain that statement. Is heat and humidity different today as opposed to the past?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

Please explain that statement. Is heat and humidity different today as opposed to the past?

Did you not read my poast, pc1?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Please explain that statement. Is heat and humidity different today as opposed to the past?

I'm saying more physical exertion, the more suffering under the hot sun. Players get cramp/exhaustion more easier.

[heninfan99]

Sometimes I feel like that Kavcic in this pic just from browsing these tennis threads. It's exhausting.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm saying more physical exertion, the more suffering under the hot sun. Players get cramp/exhaustion more easier.

Interesting, so Laver and Roche playing in 105 degree temps in the shade for 90 games at the 1969 Australian wasn't as exhausting or tough on them. Oh yes, I forgot the tiebreak wasn't around so I think Laver and Roche played a 22-20 set or something like that.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

Sometimes I feel like that Kavcic in this pic just from browsing these tennis threads. It's exhausting.

Yes it is exhausting but reading funny posts like yours makes it worthwhile.

Not that it means much but I normally played doubles early in the morning on Saturdays with a few buddies of mine. They usually are very good and the rallies are generally very long. However this one day one guy who has a pretty big serve and great power took this day to be super erratic. He was serving either aces, service winners or double faults. If they got the ball back he was hitting winners or errors. I was his partner and literally just stood at the net for about a dozen or much deuces and didn't hit a ball for about twenty minutes. After the match was over (somehow we won) I decided to exercise for 45 minutes because I didn't get any exercise at all playing tennis. This is the opposite of exhaustion in tennis. I set up a singles match for the next day so I could actually hit the ball on occasion.

Incidentally big serving players like Pancho Gonzalez could rest on service return until they felt they had a great opportunity to break because they knew the odds of them holding serve was very high. I think Agassi once complained about Sampras in that Sampras could played really badly and yet still be tied because of his serve. Sampras could play a few good minutes of tennis and win the set. Funny but I guess it's true.

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by TMF

Stop getting all upset just because I speak the truth. The baseline, long rallies is all part of the conditions that players must follow. Unlike in the old days when conditions allow you to shorten the point. That's another reason why tennis today is more gruesome. The extensive playing on hc, with demands to run faster and more distance, more exertion in every strokes.

Unfortunately, we can't control the weather. The players today get cramp, pull a muscle(hamstring), back problem, knees, ankle, etc. Had there isn't any trainer/MTO during the match, there would be many incidents of players retire early.

Also, notice they had to build the roof on Laver's Arena just to protect the players. Which reminds in 2009 AO when Nole's was about to collapse after the suffering from heat exhaustion. He was leading and in control of the match against Roddick, however the heat got the best of him and Roddick managed to take over and win in the end. The next day Serena also was effected by the heat, and was losing the match. But the difference was the officials decided to close the roof to protect the player's health, and Serena regain her strength and managed to win in the end.

I agree there were heat wave during the old days, but it doesn't have the significant effect on the players as it has for the modern players.

You can go and check in what hell of a weather played Courier and Edberg in AO 1993 final.. in the middle of the day with no roof or anything. But, maybe bloody djokovic and federer are more important than these two

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Did you not read my poast, pc1?

I didn't read the second part believe it or not until now. The second part about the global warming is very amusing considering my later statement. Funny how it fit perfectly with my statement to TMF.

Somehow I don't see Jimmy Connors as a ballerina.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And way more stupid.

Maybe Blaz is a wimp.? 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 10-8 in 104 degree weather--sounds like a tough match. Bet he couldn't play a tough match before the tie-breaker was invented, like Gonzales did.

Gonzales won at Wimbledon against Charlie Pasarell: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. But it was probably hotter in Sydney. But then Gonzales lived in Las Vegas where it has been known to get hot . . . occasionally.

Pancho would have won this match easily with his S&V style--no hours of brainless, exhausting baseline-bashing.

If only they knew how to volley today.?

But, oh yes, volleying is obsolete and endless baseline-bashing is so "heroically" physical (and so dumb in that heat--but it's all they know how to do).

Duh!?

Serve - volley is actually physically quite taxing to play as well.

Having to basically sprint after every serve and get to net as fast as possible for fear of hitting a tough volley or getting passed.

S/V requires explosive movement and anticipation.

Look no further at for example pat rafter and what an athlete that guy was in the 90s. He would physically deplete himself from constantly rushing the net after his serve and on the returns.

Baseline tennis doesnt have to be exhausting, but s/v with the ball coming back at 90 mph is definitely tiring over 5 sets.

s/v requires more anaerobic type fitness while baseline tennis is much more aerobic in nature especially on slower surfaces. Two different kinds of fitness...

Contrast for example Bjorn borg to Stefan Edberg. Both amazing athletes but different builds.

borg was super quick, had amazing endurance. But edberg was more explosive and stronger.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

Stop getting all upset just because I speak the truth. The baseline, long rallies is all part of the conditions that players must follow.

"must"?

Do the rules of the game of tennis now state one is not allowed to go to the net? No.

I guess you are speaking the "truth" again. (But it's only your personal "truth" in your private little world.)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Interesting, so Laver and Roche playing in 105 degree temps in the shade for 90 games at the 1969 Australian wasn't as exhausting or tough on them. Oh yes, I forgot the tiebreak wasn't around so I think Laver and Roche played a 22-20 set or something like that.

Is this when they were not allowed to sit between games?

[urban]

In the Brisbane heat, Laver used some old farmer tricks, and put leaves into his hat, so cool his head. Nevertheless, Roche thought that Laver was completely gone, when they showered in the 15 minutes break after the 3rd set. Later at the AO, Lendl wore a cap a la the French legionaires, to protect his neck from the heat. He had a pretty long neck and it was burnt by the sun. Nevertheless i remember a semi with Muster in 1989 or so under extreme heat, when Lendl looked completey out of it. He looked like a dead man walking.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

In the Brisbane heat, Laver used some old farmer tricks, and put leaves into his hat, so cool his head. Nevertheless, Roche thought that Laver was completely gone, when they showered in the 15 minutes break after the 3rd set. Later at the AO, Lendl wore a cap a la the French legionaires, to protect his neck from the heat. He had a pretty long neck and it was burnt by the sun. Nevertheless i remember a semi with Muster in 1989 or so under extreme heat, when Lendl looked completely out of it. He looked like a dead man walking.

Yes, were they lettuce or cabbage leaves?

[urban]

Cabbage leaves, i think. Emmo wrote later, that they grew out of Rodney's ears.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Please explain that statement. Is heat and humidity different today as opposed to the past?

Of course. Everyone knows that, not only is tennis harder and better and stronger today than at any time in the past, it is also hotter and more humid--thus more brutal.

It's global warming.